->> Lately I've noticed more and more shooters carrying around smaller, quieter cameras. On a recent assignment, I worked alongside two people using modern-day rangefinders -- one a Leica, the other a Fuji -- which were inconspicuous, had nearly-silent shutters and still produced quality images.

Has anyone here added a digital rangefinder (or similar type smaller camera) to their kit (and why)? And which model or models would they recommend (and why)?

->> Pretty much all I use is a Leica M9. It's small, quiet and light. I use to lug two Canon 1 series bodies with me and it just hurts my back after all the other gear I carry. Quite literally I roll with my Leica and my Macbook air, some spare batteries a few lens and a spare SD card or two. Don't even need a card reader (built into macbook).

->> Another vote for the Leica M9, I am a long time Leica shooter and wish to hell this camera had been available in 2004. Better late than never.

Leicas have always been Leicas, still not necessarily the most cost effective option.

In years past I carried Canon G9 & G10 P&S cams and made several page one images for my (then) paper. At the time they were heavy into staff produced video and the Canon P&S was a weight efficient option for still images when I was wearing the video hat. And it has to be said that when I was concentrating on shooting stills I also managed a few videos with the Canon P&S.

I love the M9, but if job necessities mandate carrying a pair of pro line DSLR's, I would augment my kit with either a Canon G1-X or Fuji X100.

->> I'm loving my Fuji X100. It features very acceptable low light capabilities, fixed at 35 mm, and it digitally projects camera info onto its optical viewfinder. It's ultra light to the point that I barely feel it hanging on my neck. I bought it so that I could always have a solid fully capable camera on me and not feel like I'm baby sitting a small child. A HUGE benefit to these small rangefinders is that people act a lot more naturally when you have one of these to your eye as oppose to say a D4...

If replace then the sky is the limit. If you want to simply add something for a time-to-time shoot then lots of factors come in.

I would LOVE an M9 but there is no way I can put down that kind of money for a body and lenses on something I will not use very much as the majority of my shooting is sports.

Along the lines of Bert, I just added a V2 into my camera bag. And I mean literally JUST added it on Tuesday of this week. It will primarily be a personal camera but it has the abilities to fit into a "pro" shoot. The file quality is good and the video is nice if I ever need it. The fact it can use my regular Nikon AF lenses is a bonus. It's a big magnification (2.7x making a 200-400 roughly a 500-1000 f4) but I want to play with that during baseball by going out to centerfield to shoot batters and such. It also has some good prime lenses at wide apertures. I think the proposed 32mm f1.2 would make a great portrait lens (roughly an 80 f1.2 on 35mm)

Sure the V2 with it's native 1 series lenses does not give as much manual control over focus like a rangefinder, so that is a big hit for some. But you can manual focus Nikkor AF lenses when using the adapter.

I did look hard at the Fuji line and like their features and lots of people rave about the quality. But I wanted something that fit in more with what I had and was more cost-effective so went with the V2.

->> I love my M9 and the fantastic Leica glass. But it's pretty much worthless for most sports. The only reason I could afford a Leica was I owned the lenses back in the early 2000s when Leica was in the dumper and you could buy an M6 and a fistful of lenses for a song. Today Leica wants 7 grand for a 50 mm.

->> @ JIm: I wouldn't use it to photograph sports, that's for sure. When I first got it, AF did bother me, but I got over it after accepting two things:

1.) The buttons, dials and menu options are vastly different from my Nikons! It took a while to get use to it. There is no way to back button focus with the Fuji. Pushing the shutter half way to focus felt weird, awkward, and slow since I had to do that before fully pressing the shutter.

2.) It is unfair to compare the AF speed of the Fuji to my D3Ss and D800. It is more fair to say, the delay is much shorter than any other point and shoot I've tried. I'm use to it now, so I expect and anticipated the slight time it takes for it to AF. Once it focuses, and I fully press the shutter, it takes the picture almost instantly!

->> It's not exactly a digital rangefinder, but I've found the Panasonic Lumix GX1 is a very good option for a lot of what I do. It's excellent for street photography and most day to day journalism type assignments. I used it a lot for political stories before I left the US. Here I use it in markets and temples. Very discreet. I use the accessory viewfinder because I can't stand holding a camera at arm's length in front of me.

The Canon 5D series is much better at high ISO (and darkness in general) and the longest lens I have for the GX1 is the 45mm (equal a 90 in FF terms). I know a few photographers in Bangkok using the Olympus OMD (another M4:3 camera) and they love it (looks like an SLR but it isn't). The M4:3 format is worth watching.

->> I carry (and often use) a Leica X2 almost everywhere. It's silent and doesn't scare anyone. I have both an electronic and an optical viewfinder for it. I've found it a nice compliment to my Canon bodies. Would love an M -- but can't justify it over my full-frame Canons. Yet.

->> @Paul I added a Fuji X-Pro 1 to my kit in mid-December. I currently have the 18mm F2 and 60mm f2.4 macro (27mm and 90mm, 35 mm equivalents).

I absolutely LOVE this setup. I do have the camera set for a back button focus or focus by pressing the shutter halfway. Image quality is beyond what I expected from a "small" camera.

It works well with studio strobes and speedlights whether being used with PocketWizards or a PC cord.

For street photos or fly on the wall stuff it is silent and out of the way. People ignore the camera.

As for autofocus, after updating firmware on the lenses and body it improved significantly and while not Nikon speed is more than acceptable to me. That being said I still would NOT use it as a primary sports body. (Most of my work falls into the portrait/lifestyle arena though.) For slower subjects like portraits, product, moments on the street etc this camera really shines.

I have enjoyed this camera and lenses enough that I am starting to debate picking up the 35mm f1.4 (50mm equivalent) as well. I have shot multiple jobs with it and the camera has already paid for itself.

->> @Paul it is VERY similar (sensor, autofocus etc are pretty comparable).

The big difference for me was the optical/hybrid viewfinder on the X-Pro1 vs the LCD of the EX-1. I really wanted the optical finder. It feels easier on my eyes. (It can be switched to LCD for macro to remove any parallax at those extremely close distances.)

->> @Paul I have both the X-Pro1 and EX-1 bodies. As @Rob said, they are very similar, BUT I really like the X-Pro1 optical/hybrid viewfinder. I find that I reach for the X-Pro1 a bit more (it is a bit bigger).

The lenses I own are the 14mm/2.8, 18mm/2.0, 35mm/1.4, 60mm/2.4 and the 18-55mm/2.8-4. As you can see, I've drank the Fuji kool-aid. I carry the 18mm and 35mm the most, but since picking up the 14mm two weeks ago, I'll probably add it to the mix.

I agree it is NOT a sports camera, but as a photojournalism/documentary camera I think it merits consideration. I love the fact I'm not carrying as much stuff anymore. I love the images it is producing and I'm primarily shooting jpeg. Something very few people mention is that the video is pretty good (the EX-1 has an external mic jack).

Two weekends ago in Ft. Worth, I saw some macro stuff done with the 60mm that would blow away almost every macro lens made. I know that Anacleto Rapping is shooting with the Fuji also.

->> @Paul I can not vouch for the EX-1 shutter noise. The X-Pro1 while not silent is pretty darn close. Standing within 4 to 5 feet of a subject they are often unable to discern if I have taken a photo or not.

->> I have both the X100 and the X-Pro 1 and have used them, albeit on a limited basis, for sports. Depending on my shooting location, I would prefer to use the Fujis over lugging my Canon equipment. The X-Pro 1 has, in my opinion, some backfocusing issues, which I am constantly trying to overcome. I am finding that by manual or zone focusing in certain instances, I can overcome it and using the 60 mm (crop factor makes it a 90), I can pretty much nail the focus. You can back button the Fujis when they are in manual and it works pretty well. The X100 worked for me for behind the net stuff or at the glass in hockey and under the basket for basketball. Samples can be seen here: www.pbase.com/robk47/fujix Image 104 was a half pager on the early edition of the front of the Sports section in the Boston Globe on March 9 and 112 made the late edition in almost the same size. 104 was with an X100 and 112 was with the X-Pro 1.

I've been looking for a "travel camera" for use mostly in India. I have a Canon S95 (small) and a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 (bigger, but better images). I've been looking for something that I can just carry with me wherever I go -- which is why I almost always have the small Canon with me.

I looked over the X-100 while at B&H last year, but it just didn't impress me that much - maybe because the sales person knew nothing about it, and I was getting confused. I then saw one at a photography store in India, but I knew more about it than they did - and with taxes, the price was more than I could even think about.

Now there's the X-Pro1 and the X-S1, which I've been reading about for several months. For me though, I don't want to get yet another set of lenses, and while I think I get more camera for the dollar with the X-S1 rather than the X-Pro1, I'm not sure if this is the right camera for me. I really need to go see one in person.

They've re-done a lot of things that people weren't satisfied with, and this looks to be an even better camera than it was before. To me, it would be somewhat like traveling with my Leica M8 (which is too expensive for me to replace) all over India, and maybe the best compromise I can make.

->> Do the small Fuji's have any kind of weather sealing? From what I can tell, I -think- the answer is no.

That is why I've been looking over the Olympus OMD E-5. I see some good reports about it overall. The sealing is supposed to be good too. This is a concern as I want something to withstand some rigors of travel into historically wet/humid places.

->> If I counted correctly, six people up above are already shooting with the M9, Paul Hayes, Michael Ip, Adam Bettcher, David Seelig, Chris Peterson, and Steve Ueckert. Several are shooting with the new Fuji.

I've got a question, but I don't know how to clearly express it. It has to do with getting photographs that I'm happy about when I get to see the results.

Back in the old days (Contax, Nikon RF, Leica) there was no autofocus, and getting good (and acceptably sharp) images was a challenge. Nowadays it's still a challenge to get a "good" image, but cameras like my Nikon DSLR often make 95% of my images technically perfect - unlike the old days, when a huge percentage of my photos looked pretty crappy to me.

Fast forward to today - maybe I've lost a lot of my capability, but I find that while my Nikon is at such a high percentage, when shooting with my three year old Leica M8, I'm not all that much better than back in the old RF film days - I'm still struggling to get the focus correct on many photos, and while I don't need to guess exposure (or use a hand held meter - I bought another one of those, too), my Leica (with me controlling it) isn't nearly as good at nailing the exposure as my D3.

I'm totally convinced that the "problem" is me, and that I just need to use it more and more, and learn. I've gotten spoiled by all the computerized camera gear I've gotten so used to.

My question to you guys - this new Fuji X100s seems to me to be like a combination of "the old days" (with a camera style that seems ideal for candid, travel, and personal photos) along with a built in computer that probably will do much better than I now do, about getting the image sharp and correctly exposed. Other than the obvious answers (smaller, lighter, less conspicuous), how do you feel nowadays about shooting with your M9 rather than a typical DSLR, and how much do you think the new Fuji X100s might cramp your current style (no interchangeable lenses).

I guess as an "additional camera" the X100s has all advantages, and no disadvantages - but how about if you tried to use it for your primary camera (not for sports, obviously)? ........and if you were heading out to go "downtown" or someplace, with no plan for what you might end up doing, would you reach for your M9, the X100, or ??

->> With them9 my keeper rate is pretty high form 16 mm to 50 with the 75 and 90m not quite as good. But when I am shooting street people I get so much less reaction with a leica than a dslr in terms of people starting to pose. I have been shooting leicas since the 1970s so for me no af no big deal. As far as the fuji goes have not used one past picking one up in a camera store.

->> Mike, the M-9 meter is so, so. The LCD screen sucks. The white balance can go haywire at times . The fps rate is marginal and the buffer is so-so. But the files are so stinkin sharp and the colors have such nice pop that I don't care. I have good eyes, don't wear glasses, so focusing isn't a problem, though you can get the rangefinder out of whack, which costs about $150 to have adjusted by a tech. Plus the hole she-bang, with three lenses, fits in a tiny bag. My back thanks me everyday.

PS — I've also done side-by-side comparisons with my D800 at base ISO and the Leica is just as good, if not better. Higher ISOs, of course, the D800 wins hands down.

->> I'll be honest with ya'll. I tried out a friend's M-9 while in Afghanistan and was not impressed. I actually started out using a 35mm rangefinder back in the 70's and had very good success until I started using Nikon SLR's....back to the M-9.
The thing is horrendously expensive....and the accessories (lenses) even more so. And I was quite astonished at the quality of the images in low light. Pretty horrific, in fact my Canon G9 has better files in low light and they are horrible. In my humble opinion if I'm going to drop ten grand on a camera and lens it should give me excellent results in ALL kinds of light. I'm thinking of joining Bert and George with the Nikon V2 series for the silent aspect (and the doubler with long lenses). However, as with most things, your mileage may vary and you might have a lot of dough laying around and can afford one. Plus, it IS a Leica and all your friends will think you're cool.

->> @Michael Myers -- I *wish* I had an M9. But no, I opened the thread asking others for their experiences with digital rangefinder-type cameras. I don't own one myself. But I'm keen to invest in a less conspicuous camera. I'm particularly intrigued by the Fuji X100(s)/X-Pro1.

->> I was in Paris last week returning from Cote d'Ivoire and made a stop to the Leica boutique where I was able to shoot with both the M9 Monochrom and the new M. The files out of the new M were nothing short of incredible. I would say ISO performance comparable to a 5D MK III at all ISO's. They also made the frame lines electronic instead of optical and you can change the color. Menus and everything are a major improvement. Needless to say, I will be adding one to my stable as soon as I can.

->> Paul,
I tried the Fuji once and image quality wise, there was such a minimal difference. The Fuji seemed just slightly better, to be honest, but what won me over at the time was the variety of lenses the Olympus had to offer. I thought recently about buying the Fuji too, and even tried the Leica but I need a true AF camera with my older bad eyes and then the more I thought about it, the more I thought this-I haven't been disappointed once in the Olympus so why buy something that others like better? I recently bought the 35-100 f2.8 (equiv to a 70-200 f2.8) and used it as my second body for a corporate shoot. Last summer, I was in Rolling Stone magazine about 4x-all with the Olympus and then there will be at least 10 images in my book where I used it.
The variety of lenses is definitely what still puts it over the top for me.

->> I just ordered the Fuji X100s - actually, I'm on two waiting lists now, one from Roberts Imaging (I *really* like dealing with those people, and they've got me my past two cameras) and B&H. I'll purchase it from whoever gets it sooner, and if it becomes available from both at the same time, I'll go with Roberts Imaging.

I've got no complaints about B&H, but I like that two years after my last order from Roberts, they still remember me!

Leica M....... for what it would cost me to upgrade from my M8.2, I could never afford it. When Roberts offered me a good swap towards a M8 a couple of years ago, I decided that for my purposes, the M8 was good enough for me. The new "M".... I like what I see, but I can't justify it.

When I head back to India, I expect my main camera there will be the new Fuji.

->> I have a X pro 1 and after 2 weeks of reading the manual and testing, it now goes out on every job. Sometimes it is all I use, other times I use it just because it so much fun to shoot. The 35 1.4 is just stunning. Works great with pocket wizards. Not for the faint of heart tho. Takes some getting used to and it has its quirks. Kinda old school. Not ever going to shooting action with it, but love it for portraits and features. And it's low key, does not attract attention.

I have a few pro shooter friends that swear by the X100 and with the price drop it looks tempting.

The X100s looks to fantastic and it now has a external audio port plus other improvements.

The Olympus is nice as well, really nice viewfinder and nice image quality, but the Fuji was my choice for the way it feels and that 35 lens.

->> I have my M9 with me almost daily, it is my essential carry camera. I tried getting on with various P&S cams but felt as though the camera was making the image instead of me. I would take what the camera offered, like it or not.

If I tried manually controlling the various P&S cams then I became consumed by the cam and lost connection with the subject, which I'm pretty sure is why I wanted the image in the first place. For me using a Leica is intuitive and much of the process happens without deliberate thought.

I have used Leica rangefinders, continuously since 1973 save for the period between mid-2003 and the end of 2008 when my job mandated I shoot a DSLR. I've also used SLR's just as long. The first thing I did after retiring at the end of 2008 was bring my darkroom up to speed and get my film Leicas out of the safe.

I heard the sirens' song and in mid-2009 acquired a M8-2. I soon understood its potential for me. When it was clear the M9 had just gone out of production I pulled the trigger in October of last year to upgrade to the full frame camera.

I use of Leicas as a purist (luddite) desiring my digital camera to be reasonably close to my film cameras. I'm not interested in the new "M" (240) with its video and electronic viewfinder options. The M9 (and M-E) is likely the last Leica that will be closest to the film Leicas.

I apologize for the length of this, my point is using a rangefinder (film or digital) is an experience well different from a SLR, or P&S.

A rangefinder camera isn't for everyone. I don't consider the X100 or X100S as rangefinder cameras, they are AF cameras with an optical viewfinder. If I couldn't have a M9 or M8 I might gravitate to the X100S for its viewfinder and live with the fixed lens and AF.

FWIW, there was a time I shot basketball with a M4 and M3 using a 50 & 90 mm lens on each. I'm pretty sure its been done with a Speed Graphic, too. A friend has made the point through the years that a camera is only a box with a hole in it, it is what you do with your eye and brain that matter.

->> I have my X100 for sale in classifieds. Looking to buy a couple of more lenses for my X-Pro 1 this year. I used it, the X10 and my X-Pro 1 to shoot state championship basketball last weekend, leaving my Canons at home and with NO regrets!

->> Robert, I found your ad, and just sent you a message. Like I said in my message, I deliberately did *not* go looking for a used X100, but knowing where this one came from.... check the message. :-)

Thanks for the info and feedback. Through this thread, and additional research elsewhere online (inspired by this thread), I've basically narrowed down my search to the EM-5, X-E1 and X100s.

The EM-5 and X-E1 are appealing because they allow you to change lenses. The X100(s) sounds great but I'm hesitant to invest in something limited to a single focal length. However, that being said, I've seen other photojournalists use the X100 professionally.

->> Well, thanks to Sportsshooter putting us together, Robert's X100 will soon be on its way to a new home, and I'll be better able to participate in this discussion, having used an X100.

I full expect I'm going to love it, and haven't (yet) cancelled my position in the waiting list for the X100s. If I like the X100 as much as I expect to, I'll go ahead with the new one.

Paul's original question was "Has anyone here added a digital rangefinder (or similar type smaller camera) to their kit (and why)? And which model or models would they recommend (and why)?" I think the answer to that depends on what one wants to do with the new camera - which for me is "street shooting" and/or "travel camera".

(....and maybe also the idea of using a camera with some computerized assistance, rather than using a computer that also takes photos.)

For me, my main shooting is documentary and sports, so adding a x100s to me seems to be the right move. I'll be picking one up in late April most likely and I think it'll be the right move for daily shooting when I'm not wanting to pack my dslr and traveling just like you.

->> (I wrote the following reply, then started to delete it, and then wasn't sure what to do. I'll post some images after I start using the X100, but I'm not expecting them to be much different from what I do already. I do think it will be easier to get the images, for me at least, but that's silly for me to write here, as others have their own "best" camera that fits their way of shooting...........)

Andrew, I'll do that. My local "street shooting" practice area is South Beach, in Miami Beach, and depending on what mood I'm in, I take my M8.2 (if I want to struggle to not make mistakes and remember how to do everything correctly), or my Canon S95 (which does a reasonably good job of anything I aim it at, but simply makes "snapshots"), or my Lumix DMC-LX5 which already does everything I hope the Fuji will do.

I'm guessing that if I post three shots from each of the four cameras, mixed together, nobody will be able to guess which image came from which camera. Maybe I'm wrong.

The Leica is better than me, and I struggle to use it effectively. The Canon is so-so, and I have to work to get it to do what I want. The Lumix is so good it's like an extension of my brain, and it does everything I ever ask of it. From what I've read on the 'net, and the example photos I've seen, the X100 will do better than all the others (for me).

Maybe someone here will give me a better way to compare these images, but I usually just view them at 100% and see which ones still look good, and which ones don't.... but I expect that they'll all look good.

->> Nope; it arrives tomorrow. The Post Office goofed, making for a two day delay. I get to complain to them that Priority Mail is "guaranteed" to be there in one day. Anyway, I'm anxiously waiting for tomorrow.... :-)